A study contending that boys with older brothers are biologically more likely to be homosexual has been challenged by a Canadian psychiatrist who dismisses the study as "rubbish," and by a Dutch psychologist who says the claims are "unsubstantiated."

Joseph Berger, a Distinguished Life Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association, and a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee, says in an article posted on NARTH's website that the study is "absolute utter rubbish" and "should never have been published."

Anthony Bogaert, a Canadian psychologist, wrote an article, "Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men's sexual orientation," which was published in the July 11, 2006 edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, which indicates that sexual orientation for some men is biologically determined before birth, has been reported worldwide, with uncritical articles in the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

Bogaert examined eight different sibling scenarios for 944 men in four samples, three of which were "archival," with one sample recruited through ads in mostly homosexual-themed publications. Michael Smith, writing in the online journal MedPageToday, (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Genetics/tb/3641) breaks down the study's statistical findings for readers. He explains that out of the sibling arrangements, the only category that showed a possible determinant for homosexuality was the presence of older, biological brothers. Dr. Bogaert also examined the number of years a man had been reared with his brothers and sisters and whether or not they were related by blood.

Dr. Berger, in the NARTH article, "Canadian Psychiatrist Finds Major Flaws in Anthony Bogaert's Study of Gay Brothers," lists several fallacies with the study's conclusions:

"The author starts by presuming 'evidence' for some sort of biological causation of homosexuality...All the first references are to people such as [Dean] Hamer, [Simon] LeVay, [Michael] Bailey, etc., whose work has been assessed and critiqued, and there have been no follow-up studies confirming the claims of any of these people." (For a refutation of these and other studies purporting a genetic link to homosexuality, see Robert Knight's CFI Special Report "Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim that Homosexuality Is Genetic.

"The author's assertion that siblings in the same family are exposed to identical environments in growing up . Even identical children are treated differently from birth. When we come to children born at different times there are an enormous number of possible factors that might make for significant differences in upbringing ." Dr. Berger cites the family's current financial state, the stability of the parents' marriage, the death of a parent, and personality as some of the factors that would contribute to the differences in the upbringing of children within the same family.

"If you begin a study with an etiology based on flawed assumptions," Dr. Berger told CWA, "it discredits the whole theory .This study is yet another claim based on nothing other than an obvious personal wish/bias [and] superficial research that may be purely coincidental to or entirely unrelated to the conclusion that the researchers are proposing."

In another critique of the study on the NARTH Website, Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg contends that crucial missing social factors, such as the age when some of the boys were separated from their first household or whether their mothers were present in the new household doom any definitive finding of a biological factor.

In Anthony Boegart (& Friends) Grasping at a Straw," van den Aardweg writes, "In short, all information on the relevant life-history data and developmental-psychological factors of these pivotal raised-apart boys is painfully missing. This unpardonable neglect makes any attempt at interpretation a mere groping in the dark."

MedPage Today reports that in previous works, Dr. Bogaert, along with some of his colleagues, estimated that 28 percent of homosexual men can link their sexual orientation to their fraternal birth order. "These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men," Dr. Bogaert said, "and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal 'memory'' for male gestations or births."

In a companion article to the Bogaert study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, David A. Puts, Ph.D., Cynthia L. Jordan, and Marc S. Breedlove firmly declare their support for the idea that homosexuality is normal and say that "a host of reports bolster the idea that prenatal events, rather than family relations, affect the likelihood that a person will grow up to be straight or gay." The authors also uncritically cite Simon LeVay's 1991 study, which has since been revealed to be deeply flawed and unreplicated, and note that "circumstantial evidence has accumulated suggesting that some people really are born to become gay."

Van den Aardweg comments:

"The 'circumstantial evidence' which is believed to have 'accumulated' and which would 'suggest that some people are born to become gay' is imaginary today. To proclaim that it is virtually certain that 'some people are really born gay' is not only scientific nonsense. Coming from the pen of academics such language is irresponsibly cheap and unscientific. If this deceptive and inexpert kind of commentary is all the wisdom the U.S. Academy of Sciences has to offer on occasion of a scientifically weak publication, the conclusion must be that it has adopted a new member: gay science."

Puts and his colleagues told MedPage Today of one possible explanation for the biological link. "Women may develop an antibody response to the 'foreign' male tissue of a male fetus. The idea, first proposed in 1985, is that a mother carrying a first son is not exposed to male-specific proteins until delivery, when fetal and maternal blood inevitably mix. However, an immune response to such proteins will affect subsequent sons, via active transport across the placenta, and might perturb development." These researchers went on to say, "Whether this is what is really happening for sexual orientation remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis."

Van den Aardweg notes that the way Boegart reports his results, "his discovery is virtually proof that some mothers produce anti-boy antibodies each time when they are pregnant with a boy, the accumulating effect which somehow would affect the brain of a later-born son so that he becomes a homosexual. His argument? Because his finding is 'consistent with' that theory (I would just as easily rely on an explanation based on a boy's horoscope). Consistency with a theory does not decide the validity of a theory, however."

Despite his conclusion that his data "strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect, Boegart himself acknowledges elsewhere in his study: "No direct support exists for a maternal immune response that underlies the fraternal birth-order effect, but various lines of evidence exist in this theory's favor and have been reviewed elsewhere."

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and author of the book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Bookhouse), told CWA in an e-mail that the Boegart study is not determinative. "What's always missed is the chain of causality (assuming the research is accurate, well done, the statistics are good, etc., all is replicated and so on) between the facts that have been established ."There is in fact no evidence at all that any biological factor makes a person gay or lesbian. There's demonstrable evidence that certain genes/proteins make a person blue-eyed, mentally retarded, or not a person at all but a plant." Satinover said that other probable "intermediate chains of causality" for the creation of homosexual inclinations "are obvious the moment one stops thinking in political terms."

Dr. Berger cautions that the Boegart data should be seen as "interesting chance findings," not conclusive evidence. Further testing would need to be done, he told CWA. A broader sample of men would be required, and the mothers' wombs would need to be tested to indicate whether or not prenatal conditions influence sexuality, he said.

"Many people confuse mathematical differences with biological differences," Dr. Berger told CWA. "If you traveled to the Middle East and surveyed 1,000 families, would you conclude that the Islamic faith is a genetic predisposition? The mathematical facts do not conclude that there is biological causation."

A previous study (1999) by Dr. Boegart concluded that homosexual men have larger genitalia than heterosexual men. Boegart based his findings on data from 5,000 interviews of men by Alfred C. Kinsey, the now-discredited sex research pioneer. In self-reported measurements mailed in after their interviews, more homosexual men reported larger penises than did the heterosexual men.

van den Aardweg writes, "In short, all information on the relevant life-history data and developmental-psychological factors of these pivotal raised-apart boys is painfully missing. This unpardonable neglect makes any attempt at interpretation a mere groping in the dark."

Curious choice of words...

7
posted on 07/21/2006 5:14:18 PM PDT
by Tall_Texan
(I wish a political party would come along that thinks like I do.)

ALL their studies are rubbish, as are many other so called scientific studies. Still they will be lauded as ground breaking, and quoted as statistics over and over and over. Any lie told often enough, they believe, becomes true.

And we Americans are stupid, silly little fools who will buy their propaganda, or so they think.

A study contending that boys with older brothers are biologically more likely to be homosexual has been challenged by a Canadian psychiatrist who dismisses the study as "rubbish," and by a Dutch psychologist who says the claims are "unsubstantiated."

Joseph Berger, a Distinguished Life Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association, and a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee, says in an article posted on NARTH's website that the study is "absolute utter rubbish" and "should never have been published."

YET -published it was AND touted in hundreds of headlines it was... Just like the recent "Lesbian Brain" study - ROTFLMAO

I do not envision that this version of the news will get as much fanfare -it never does...

Although, to be fair, neither Dr. Berger nor Dr. van der Aardweg could be called impartial critics. They each have their own particular hobby horses to peddle. A more persuasive criticism of the study would be an evaluation of the data and conclusions by actual geneticists and statisticians. This particular study, as I remember, is simply correlational and the authors make the classic mistake of concluding cause and effect from correlation, which is a big statistical faux pas. This is done every day when associating things like caffeine intake and cardiovascular disease or cancer. It is reported as cause and effect when no such conclusion can be validly reached based on correlation. Also, these two doctors seem not to know the difference between genetic and prenatal. The study made no claims for a genetic basis for homosexuality, but instead concluded something in the prenatal environment was causing the effect. (The most obvious factor that could account for this would be changes in hormonal levels in the womb as a result of the aging of the mother and is something that could actually be tested to support or disprove Bogaert's conclusions.)

Also, how much do you want to bet that these same two doctors see no problem with the whole global warming hoax which is based on similar "levels" of proof?

The point is that science is not fair. If the science is sound THEN motive matters not -- IF the science is junk THEN motive matters. Regardless in either case, motive does not make or break the science IT makes or breaks the "scientist"...

...the only category that showed a possible determinant for homosexuality was the presence of older, biological brothers...mothers hoping for daughters have yet more sons, subtly overprotect and feminize these youngest sons to help fulfill their wishes, sons become "gay" - QED: family dynamics in cohorts of older/younger sons lead to homosexuality......

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.